Find a Lawyer

M.A. NO. 10/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 11TH AUGUST, 2004. versus M.A. NO. 10/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 11TH AUGUST, 2004.

Section 221 Error Correction Applicant / SCC requested that the order submitted by the appellate tribunal be corrected, as well as the legal errors in the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction, and that the appellate tribunal order correction. The reasons that were advanced were the unusual delays. Recording stated that the order caused applicants / reviewers to face prejudice, not only because of the delay in deciding the matter, but also on the merit, within seven months from the date of the order's hearing. The order could not be verified on this basis. Under the meaning of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, the scope of the amendment / amendment of the Tribunal order revolved around the error, either by the Income Tax Authority / Commissioner (Appeal) or the Appellate Tribunal that the notice should appear. The applicant may be referred to the applicant for correction of such error on record as the wrong place was kept wrong as no error or record was identified as wrong unless the same judicial forum had the option Was not given to review his order, especially when the matters involved were discussed as the Tribunal discussed and made a wide range of matters in his order. An important decision in this regard was, there was no justification for the applicant to review a decision already made by a tribunal request for correction of order: \ r \ n immigration advocates email from Jhudo lawyer